1:30 I Call to Order - Larry Duffy 5 Min.
A. Roll Call
B. Approval of Minutes to Meeting #95
C. Adoption of Agenda
1:35 II Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 5 Min.
A. Motions Approved:
1. Motion to amend the Graduate Degree
Requirements.
2. Motion to amend the UAF Faculty Appointment
and Evaluation Policies & Regulations for the
Evaluation of Faculty.
3. Motion to approve the deletion of the B.A. &
B.S. in Physical Education & Exercise Science.
4. Motion to amend the policy on Minors available
for the B.A. degree.
5. Motion to amend Article V: Committees, of
the Bylaws.
6. Motion to approve the Certificate and AAS
degree concentration in Emergency Medical
Services.
B. Motions Pending: none
1:40 III A. Remarks by Provost P. Reichardt 10 Min.
Summary Report of 1999/2000 Faculty Reviews
(Attachment 96/1)
C. Guest Speaker - Ted DeLaca, Director 15 Min.
Office of Arctic Research (Attachment 96/2)
2:05 IV Governance Reports
A. ASUAF -S. Banks / GSO - 5 Min.
B. Staff Council - S. Culbertson 5 Min.
C. President's Report - L. Duffy (Attachment 96/3) 5 Min.
2:20 V. Consent Agenda
A. Motion to withdraw the motion to amend the
Faculty Senate Constitution (Attachment 96/4),
submitted by Faculty Affairs
2:20 VI New Business
A. Motion on Appeals Policy for Academic Decisions 5 Min.
(Attachment 96/5), Faculty Appeals & Oversight
B. Motion to amend the UAF Faculty Appointment 5 Min.
and Evaluation Policies & Regulations for the
Evaluation of Faculty (Attachment 96/6),
Faculty Appeals & Oversight
2:30 VI Committee Reports 20 Min.
A. Curricular Affairs - R. Illingworth (Attachment 96/7)
B. Faculty Affairs - P. McRoy (Attachment 96/8)
C. Core Review - J. Brown
D. Curriculum Review - S. Bandopadhyay
E. Developmental Studies - J. Weber (Attachment 96/9)
F. Faculty Appeals & Oversight - G. Chukwu
(Attachment 96/10)
G. Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement -
T. Robinson (Attachment 96/11)
H. Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee - J. Gardner
(Attachment 96/12)
2:50 ***BREAK*** 10 Min
3:00 VII Public Comments/Questions 5 Min.
3:05 VIII Discussion Items 20 Min.
A. Evaluation Process for Administrators
(Attachment 96/13)
3:25 IX Members' Comments/Questions 5 Min.
3:30 X Adjournment
********************
ATTACHMENT 96/1
UAF FACULTY SENATE #96
SEPTEMBER 25, 2000
SUMMARY REPORT OF 1999/2000 FACULTY REVIEWS
Paul Reichardt
Promotion/Tenure and Tenure Only
13 files; 10-yes, 1-no, 2-withdrawn
9 yes at all stages of review
1 no at all stages of review
1 yes from peer committee and Chancellor only (additional
documentation added to this file by candidate after review by Provost)
Promotion
19 files; 17yes, 2-no
8 yes at all stages of review
2 no at all stages of review
2 yes by all but peer committee
2 yes by all but campus committee and Provost
4 yes by all but campus committee
1 yes by all but Dean
Post-Tenure
69 files; 68-"S" or above, 1-"U"
68 "S" or above at all stages of review
1 "U" by Provost and Chancellor
Only one faculty member was judged to have an unsatisfactory
performance. However, many files contained recommendations,
suggestions and observations aimed at improvement of performance.
Pre-Tenure
6 files; 5-"S" or above, 1-"U"
5 "S" or above at all stages of review
1 "U" by campus committee, Provost and Chancellor
Overall, 107 files were submitted for review. Two were withdrawn. Of
the 105 which went through the entire review process, 93 received the
same recommendation (positive = 90; negative = 3) at each stage of
review. There were 8 cases in which the Chancelloršs decision did not
follow the campuswide committeešs recommendation. One of these was
a post-tenure review case in which the campuswide committee had
voted "3-S, 2-U" and the peer committee had voted "2-S, 2-U, 1-A." In
one promotion-tenure case, the applicant added substantive information
to the file after it had been reviewed by the Provost. In all other cases
in which the Chancelloršs decision did not follow the campuswide
committeešs recommendation, the Chancelloršs decision was consistent
with the recommendations made at two or more levels of review. In no
case except the post-tenure review described above was the
Chancelloršs decision inconsistent with both levels of faculty
recommendations.
Overall, there were significant changes in the nature of the post-tenure
review recommendations from those of the previous year.
Recommendations at all levels were more focused on actual
recommendations, comments and suggestions than those of 1998-
1999. While this was particularly true at the unit peer committee level,
there still were some unit reviews which focused almost entirely on "the
vote." However, it does appear that UAF has made considerable
progress toward turning this exercise into a useful method for providing
both praise and constructive criticism for tenured faculty members.
The pre-tenure comprehensive review process appears to be working
very well. Both peer committees and administrators did very thorough
and conscientious jobs of advising untenured faculty on their progress
toward tenure.
********************
ATTACHMENT 96/2
UAF FACULTY SENATE #96
SEPTEMBER 25, 2000
MEMORANDUM
DATE : 23 June 2000
TO : Chancellor Lind
Provost Reichardt
FROM : Ted DeLaca, Director Office of Arctic Research (OAR)
RE : Reorganization of OAR to create UAFšs Office of Sponsored
Programs
The attached memoranda and other explanatory materials describe my
proposal to reorganize the Office of Arctic Research (org chart 1) to
provide a higher level of service to the UAF campus and the UA System.
The new office should be called the Office of Sponsored Programs (org
chart 2). The proposed tasks and duties are consistent with those
published by many other universities of similar sizes and missions.
Unfortunately, there is some negative inertia within UAF that must be
overcome before I can fully realize the full cooperation with other
elements of UAF proposed herein. If this proposal is accepted, I expect
full implementation within two years (2002), with substantial
improvements in service by the end of the first year (2001). While I will
present these plans to the Deans and Directors, per Paul Reichardtšs
request, I feel that it is appropriate to present the plans to both of you
first to get your agreement for me to seek their endorsement. With
your agreement, I must immediately hire a replacement for the Ann
Trent position as a "Proposal Development Specialist" to maintain
services to UAF.
Many circumstances have changed since a former (fledgling) UAF Office
of Sponsored Programs was dissolved and the OAR was created by then
Chancellor Wadlow. This proposal is driven by several factors including
the following needs:
_ Coherent management of pre-award administration across UAF;
_ Consolidation and improvement of information access and internal
and external communications;
_ Enhancement of proposal development for the campus;
_ UAF point of contact to coordinate EPSCoR related developmental
activities.
_ Development of an electronic grants administration capability;
_ Development of a Research Integrity Office for UAF; and,
_ Creation of a Campus-wide Facility for Advanced Instrumentation
and the evolution of ADVAL into a support component of the
developing data and teaching center for remote sensing. Both of these
last items will be done in coordination with CSEM.
PROPOSED CHANGES: (SEE ATTACHED TASKS AND DUTIES AND
POSITION DESCRIPTIONS.)
1. Hire Diane McLean as Deputy Director OSP at 1/3 rd time. In
addition to allowing expansion of office responsibilities, McLean will
provide essential supervision of proposal development during periods of
times when the director is on business travel or leave.
2. Hire a new secretary. That position will be hired at a low (72-73)
level. The position will deal with many of the phone and correspondence
requirements and also perform data entry. The position will primarily
report to the Deputy Director, but also share some responsibilities with
the Assistant to the Director.
3. Dissolve the Proposal Office. Positions in the former Proposal
Office will become "Proposal Development Specialists" under the direct
supervision of the Director and Deputy Director of OSP. There will be
four such positions including the 1) Chris Baker and 2) Ann Trent
positions. Ann Secrest will be the third proposal development specialist
for private and corporate foundations and will hold the title of
"Associate Director" in recognition of her foundation development
activities.
4. Hire a fourth Proposal Development Specialist. This additional
position would be advertised mid-year, after the office is established
and the second development specialist (Ann Trent position) is in place.
This fourth position will be advertised at a lower level or 73 or 74.
5. Eliminate the proposal information coordinator position (the Ann
Trent position). Most of the efforts related to those duties have been
removed by the services of the "Community of Science" (COS) and
Institutional Research Information System (IRIS) programs that UA and
UAF presently subscribes to. The coordination and information
distribution functions as well as creation of our UAF News Page and
Alert Services will be provided by the Assistant to the Director (a
position currently filled by Mary Floyd).
6. Create a UAF Research Integrity Office (RIO) (see attached
memorandum). The RIO will coordinate existing efforts related to:
radiation safety, animal care and use, human subjects, hazardous
materials, physical plant safety, and related personnel management
through a standing committee and will provide federally required
information and education and certification related to misconduct in
science. The UAF RIO will coordinate institutional responses related to
allegations of misconduct in science.
_ It is proposed that that committee be named the UAF Research
Integrity Committee. It will be chaired by the UAF Research Integrity
Officer (also director of OSP) be supported within a newly coined
Research Integrity Office (a sub-element of the OSP). The committee
will meet monthly.
_ I am also proposing a new standing committee consisting of three
professorial level faculty and chaired by the UAF Research Integrity
Officer. The committee will be prepared to deal rapidly and effectively
with any allegations of misconduct related to UAF faculty, staff or
students. That committee should be named the UAF Research Ethics
Committee. That committee will meet as needed but at least once a
year to review its charge and any changes in Federal regulations.
I believe this proposed change is necessary, if not required, by existing
and pending Federal regulations.
7. Further develop and expand the Advanced Instrumentation
Laboratory (AIL). A separate memo will follow this proposal to detail
the creation of a UAF facility for advanced instrumentation (AIL) to
serve the needs of the campus. The AIL will be a recharge center
distributed across the campus but centered within CSEM. It will focus
on providing high quality service for research and educational missions
of UAF in a cost-effective manner. AIL will initially be a collaborative
effort between OSP and CSEM with other UAF entities drawn in over
time.
8. Redirect the mission of the ADVAL. While the original mission of
ADVAL, which was to provide GIS and visualization capabilities to the
Bonanza Creek LTER and to faculty and students across campus, has
served a valuable service to the campus, it is beginning to outlive its
usefulness. Shari George and I agree that it is time to reconsider its
mission. I propose that a merger be made between CSEM
(Woodall/Sharpton) and OSP to create a new research and teaching
element related to remotely-sensed data using the newly acquired
remote-sensing teaching laboratory, obtained with end-of-year funds
(~$130K including a 50% industrial match), and the new MODIS down
link (~$500K federal to OAR) be merged with ADVAL to provide service
to UAF.
********************
ATTACHMENT 96/3
UAF FACULTY SENATE #96
SEPTEMBER 25, 2000
President's Comments - Larry Duffy
Welcome back for the start of the academic year. I want to thank all of
you for the help last summer with working on various aspects of the
reaccredidation process. Ron Gatterdam is directing the process in that
we will have a first draft by mid-October. Also, the new UAF 2005
Strategic Plan Draft will be coming out shortly for your comment.
I want to call your attention to the draft UA Mission Statement and
University Values that the Board of Regents are considering. This is
important in line with the UA initiative process. Over the last two years
the process has evolved and both UA and UAF administrators have been
responsive to our calls for more faculty input on these initiatives. Work
with your colleagues and departments to submit proposals. Remember
your departmental activity is the basis of faculty governance.
The Alliance, through the academic liaison faculty fellow is providing
faculty input to the provosts and others on issues such as the timeline
for FY03 initiatives. Regarding program initiatives, at least one Alliance
member is part of a program initiative advisory group.
Richard Hacker was selected by the president as the first annual
academic liaison faculty fellow to work with the Alliance and provide
faculty input to the president. Hacker has been on the faculty of UAS
for many years, heading up the paralegal studies program among others.
Hacker has served as president of the old UA General Assembly, the
precursor of the present system governance system and is very familiar
with the concepts and linkages between faculty governance,
administration and the Board of Regents. The Alliance recommended
the establishment of this position and participates in the recruitment
and recommendation of candidates to the president for this position.
UAA Faculty Senate and UAS Faculty Council are reviewing the mission
and values statements and I intend to provide that input directly to the
Board of Regents in October. The Alliance has Ron Gatterdam working
with university legal counsel and others on the Information Resources
regulation language to protect, to the extent possible, privacy,
academic freedom and research.
Lastly at the end of this meeting, we will discuss the review process for
the evaluation of administrators. Please read this carefully, you will be
finalizing about 10 years of faculty effort on this issue. I believe this
issue is an excellent one for beginning this century of UAF faculty
governance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Board of Regents
DRAFT MISSION STATEMENT
and
VALUE STATEMENTS
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA SYSTEM
At its June 9, 2000 meeting, the Planning and Development Committee
of the Board of Regents crafted the following draft mission statement
and value statements for the University of Alaska System. The board
now requests public input from its constituents. Comments can be sent
to: Board of Regents' Office, University of Alaska, PO Box 755300,
Fairbanks, AK 99775; call (907) 474-7908; e-mail
SYBOR@ALASKA.EDU; or fax (907) 474-6342.
The Board of Regents will take official action on the mission statement
and value statements at its meeting on October 5-6, 2000. Please
submit your comments and suggestions by September 15, 2000.
DRAFT MISSION STATEMENT
"The University of Alaska, with its Land, Sea, and Space Grant
institutions and international research centers, inspires learning,
advances and disseminates knowledge through teaching, research, and
public service, emphasizing the North and her diverse peoples."
DRAFT VALUE STATEMENTS
The University of Alaska values:
ˇ Excellence in our programs and services;
ˇ Leadership for Alaska's people and institutions;
ˇ Accountability to our students, faculty, staff, and the citizens of
Alaska;
ˇ Stewardship of our resources;
ˇ Diversity in our response to the cultures of Alaska;
ˇ Unity in promoting communication and collaboration;
ˇ Accessibility for all Alaskans.
********************
ATTACHMENT 96/4
UAF FACULTY SENATE #96
SEPTEMBER 25, 2000
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS
MOTION:
======
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to withdraw the motion to amend the
Constitution presented at the May 5, 2000 meeting concerning research
faculty membership on the Senate.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
RATIONALE: The Faculty Affairs Committee discussion raised
several issues with this motion as presented and they will
study the issue further before bringing it back to the
Senate.
***************
***FIRST READING***
MOTION
======
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Article III, Section 2 of the
UAF Faculty Senate Constitution as follows:
[[ ]] = Deletions
CAPS = Additions
ARTICLE III - Membership
Sect. 2 Voting members of the Senate must EITHER hold academic
rank [[and must be]] WITH full-time CONTINUING
APPOINTMENT AT [[permanent employees of]] the
University of Alaska FAIRBANKS OR HOLD SPECIAL
ACADEMIC RANK WITH TITLE PRECEDED BY RESEARCHš
AND HAVE A THREE-YEAR CONTINUING APPOINTMENT IN
THE YEAR OF ELIGIBILITY AND ELECTION.
EFFECTIVE: Upon Chancellor approval
RATIONALE: The number of research faculty on campus has
increased in recent years. Members of this faculty group
seek participation in faculty governance as well as
representation on the Faculty Senate. This change
accommodates this group of faculty.
********************
ATTACHMENT 96/5
UAF FACULTY SENATE #96
SEPTEMBER 25, 2000
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY APPEALS & OVERSIGHT
MOTION:
======
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the following Appeals Policy
for Academic Decisions.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
Upon Chancellor Approval
RATIONALE: This motion will bring UAF into compliance with
the new UA Regulation 09.03.02 and extend UAF's appeals
policy beyond grade appeals.
***************
APPEALS POLICY FOR ACADEMIC DECISIONS
Other Than Assignment of Grades
I. Introduction
The University of Alaska is committed to the ideal of academic freedom
and so recognizes that academic decisions (i.e., non-admission to or
dismissal from any UAF program) are a faculty responsibility. Therefore,
the University administration shall not influence or affect the review of
academic decisions.
The following procedures are designed to provide a means for students
to seek review of academic decisions alleged to be arbitrary and
capricious. Before taking formal action, a student must attempt to
resolve the issue informally. A student who files a written request for
review under the following procedures shall be expected to abide by the
final disposition of the review, as provided below, and may not seek
further review of the matter under any other procedure within the
university.
II. Definitions
A. As used in the schedule for review of academic decisions, a class
day is any day of scheduled instruction, excluding Saturday and Sunday,
included on the academic calendar in effect at the time of a review.
Final examination periods are counted as class days.
B. "Department Chair" for the purposes of this policy denotes the
administrative head of the academic unit offering the course (e.g., head,
chair or coordinator of an academic department, or the campus director
if the faculty member is in the College of Rural Alaska).
C. The "dean/director" is the administrative head of the college or
school offering the course or program from which the academic decision
or action arises. For students at extended campuses the director of the
campus may substitute for the dean/director of the unit offering the
course or program.
D. The next regular semester is the fall or spring semester following
that in which the disputed academic decision was made. For example, it
would be the fall semester for a final grade issued for a course
completed during the previous spring semester or summer session. The
spring semester is the next regular semester for an academic decision
made during the previous fall semester.
III. Procedures
A. A student wishing to appeal an academic decision other than a
grade assignment must first request an informal review of the decision.
1. Notification must be received by the Provost within 15 days from
the first day of instruction of the semester in which the decision takes
effect.
2. There may be extenuating circumstances when the deadlines
cannot be met due to illness, mail disruption, or other situations over
which the student may have no control. In such a case, upon request
from the student, the Provost, after review of supporting
documentation provided by the student, may adjust the deadlines
accordingly. An extension of the deadline will be limited to one
semester but every effort should be made to complete the appeal
process within the current semester.
3. The Provost will request the appropriate department chair or dean
to conduct an informal review of the decision and a determination of
whether the original decision should be overturned or changed in any
way. This review shall take no more than ten (10) days.
4. The Provost will consult with the student on the department
chair/dean's recommendation. If the student does not find that
recommendation acceptable, he/she may request the Provost to
conduct a formal review.
B. The formal review will be conducted as follows.
1. This review is initiated by the student through a signed, written
request to the Provost.
a. The student's request for review may be submitted using
university forms specifically designed for this purpose and available
Office of the Provost.
b. By submitting a request for a review, the student acknowledges
that no additional mechanisms exist within the university for the review
of the decision, and that the university's administration can not
influence or affect the outcome of the review.
c. The request for a formal review must be received no later than 10
days after the student has learned the outcome of the informal review
(IIIA4).
d. The request must detail the basis for the allegation that the
decision was made on a basis other than sound professional judgment
based upon standard academic policies, procedures and practices.
2. The Provost will appoint a 5 member review committee composed
of the following:
a. One tenure-track faculty member from the academic unit in which
the decision was made.
b. Two tenure-track faculty members from within the college or
school but outside of the unit in which the decision was made. If
available, one of these two members will be selected from the members
of the UAF Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee.
c. One tenure track faculty member from outside the college or
school in which the decision was made. If available, this member is to
be selected from the members of the UAF Faculty Appeals and
Oversight Committee.
d. The fifth member to be appointed by the Provost will be a non-
voting student representative.
e. The campus judicial officer or his/her designee shall serve as a
nonvoting facilitator for appeals hearings. This individual shall serve in
an advisory role to help preserve consistent hearing protocol and
records.
f, The department chair of the program in which the decision was
made will act as the program's monitor of all proceedings.
5. The committee must schedule a mutually agreeable date, time
and location for the appeal hearing within 10 working days of receipt of
the student's formal request.
a. During this and subsequent meetings, all parties involved shall
protect the confidentiality of the matter according to the provisions of
the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and any other
applicable federal, state or university policies.
b. Throughout the proceedings, the committee will encourage a
mutually agreeable resolution.
c. The mandatory first item of business at this meeting is for the
committee to rule on the validity of the student's request. Grounds for
dismissal of the request for review are:
1) This is not the first properly prepared request for appeal.
2) The request was not made within the policy deadlines.
d. In the event that the committee votes to dismiss the request, a
written notice of dismissal must be forwarded to the student,
instructor, department head and dean within five days of the decision,
and will state clearly the reasoning for the dismissal of the request.
6. Acceptance for consideration of the student's request will result
in the following:
a. A request for and receipt of a formal response from the program
to the student's allegation.
b. A second meeting scheduled to meet within 10 days of the
decision to review the request.
1) The student and a representative of the program will be invited to
attend the meeting.
2) The meeting will be closed to outside participation, and neither
the student nor instructor may be accompanied by an advocate or
representative. Other matters of format will be announced in advance.
3) The proceedings will be tape recorded and the tapes will be stored
with the campus Judicial Officer.
4) The meeting must be informal, non-confrontational and fact-
finding, where both the student and instructor may provide additional
relevant and useful information and can provide clarification of facts for
materials previously submitted.
7. The final decision of the committee will be made in private by a
majority vote.
a. Actions which the committee can take if it accepts the student's
allegation may include, but are not limited to, the following:
1) direct the program to reconsider the decision,
2) provide a final alternative decision.
b. The academic decision review committee proceedings will result in
the preparation of written findings and conclusions.
c. A formal, written report of the decision must be forwarded to the
student, program/department chair, dean and Provost within five days
of the meeting. The Provost shall then be responsible for
communicating the decision to other relevant offices (e.g., Admissions,
Registrar).
d. The decision of the committee is final.
8. The entire process must be completed by the end of the
semester in which the decision first took effect.
********************
ATTACHMENT 96/6
UAF FACULTY SENATE #96
SEPTEMBER 25, 2000
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY APPEALS & OVERSIGHT
MOTION
=======
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the UAF Faculty Appointment
and Evaluation Policies and Regulations for the Evaluation of Faculty:
Initial Appointment, Annual Review, Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure,
and Sabbatical Leave as attached.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
Upon Chancellor's Approval
RATIONALE: Unit Criteria as a component of
evaluation, tenure, and promotion was apparently
removed from the last "Blue Book" due to an erroneous
belief that the faculty union contracts rendered them
void or redundant in the "Blue Book". This is
emphatically not the case, and so we have reinserted
the relevant paragraphs on Unit Criteria from the previous
"Blue Book".
***************
[[ ]] = Deletion
CAPS = Addition
III. PERIODIC EVALUATION OF FACULTY
B. UNIT STANDARDS AND INDICES. UNIT STANDARDS AND INDICES
ARE THE RECOGNIZED VALUES USED BY A FACULTY WITHIN A
SPECIFIC DISCIPLINE TO ELUCIDATE, BUT NOT REPLACE, THE
GENERAL FACULTY CRITERIA ESTABLISHED IN A., ABOVE, FOR
EVALUATION OF FACULTY PERFORMANCE ON AN ONGOING BASIS
AND FOR PROMOTION, TENURE AND SABBATICAL REVIEW.
UNIT STANDARDS AND INDICES MAY BE, BUT ARE NOT REQUIRED
TO BE, DEVELOPED BY THOSE UNITS WISHING TO DO SO. UNITS
THAT CHOOSE NOT TO DEVELOP DISCIPLINE-SPECIFIC UNIT
STANDARDS AND INDICES MUST FILE A STATEMENT SO STATING
WITH THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE WHICH SHALL SERVE AS THE
OFFICIAL REPOSITORY FOR APPROVED UNIT STANDARDS AND
INDICES.
UNIT STANDARDS AND INDICES, IF DESIRED, WILL BE DEVELOPED
BY THE FACULTY IN A DISCIPLINE. AFTER APPROVAL BY A
MAJORITY OF THE DISCIPLINE FACULTY, THE UNIT STANDARDS
AND INDICES WILL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE
COGNIZANT DEAN WHO WILL FORWARD THE UNIT STANDARDS
AND INDICES TO THE PROVOST. THE PROVOST WILL REVIEW FOR
CONSISTENCY WITH POLICY AND WILL FORWARD THESE
STANDARDS AND INDICES TO THE SENATE FOR ITS AND THE
CHANCELLOR'S APPROVAL.
UNIT STANDARDS AND INDICES WILL BE REVIEWED PERIODICALLY
BY THE FACULTY OF THE UNIT. REVISION OF UNIT STANDARDS
AND INDICES MUST FOLLOW THE ESTABLISHED REVIEW PROCESS.
IF THE UNIT STANDARDS AND INDICES ARE NOT REVISED, A
STATEMENT OF REAFFIRMATION OF THE CURRENT UNIT
STANDARDS AND INDICES MUST BE FILED WITH THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE, FOLLOWING THE REVIEW.
UNIT STANDARDS AND INDICES, WHEN DEVELOPED BY THE
FACULTY AND APPROVED BY THE SENATE AND THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE, MUST BE USED IN THE REVIEW
PROCESSES BY ALL LEVELS OF REVIEW. THEIR USE IS NOT
OPTIONAL.
IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CANDIDATE FOR
TENURE OR PROMOTION TO INCLUDE THESE APPROVED
STANDARDS AND INDICES IN THE APPLICATION FILE.
IV. EVALUATION PROCESS FOR RETENTION, PROMOTION, TENURE,
AND POST TENURE REVIEW
A. Linkage of Promotion/Tenure. An award of tenure is concurrent
with promotion and vice versa. Any faculty member applying for
promotion to the associate level must also apply for tenure; and
a faculty member at the rank of assistant professor may not
apply for tenure without concurrently seeking advancement to
the rank of associate professor.
B. Faculty with Academic Rank
1. Criteria and Eligibility. A record of continuing effective
performance shall be expected. Procedures, performance
criteria and requirements are set forth in the applicable
union contracts, UAF Faculty Policies, and in policies of
the Board of Regents and the regulations of the University
system currently in effect and as they may change.
2. Review Process. Promotion and tenure of a faculty
member results from a multi-level process of evaluation
beginning in the academic unit of the candidate.
a. Constitution and Operation of the University-wide
Peer Review committees.
(1) For the purpose of evaluation for tenure
and/or promotion of members of the United
Academics bargaining unit, a list of the
names of seven tenured unit members will
be presented BY THE UAF FACULTY SENATE to
the Provost who will select the committee
or committees. Each unit peer review
committee may nominate one of its members
to serve. The list will be determined from
those nominees by vote of all faculty who
serve on unit peer review committees.
Faculty shall remain on the list for a
term of two years with the terms being
staggered. No specific peer review
committee can be represented by more
than one person. A faculty member may
not stand for promotion during the term
of appointment to the list.
(2) For the purpose of pre or post tenure
evaluation of members of the United
Academics bargaining unit, a list of the
names of seven faculty members will be
presented BY THE UAF FACULTY SENATE
to the Provost who will select the
committee or committees. Each unit peer
review committee may nominate one of its
members to serve. The list will be
determined from those nominees by vote of
all faculty who serve on unit peer review
committees. Faculty shall remain on the
list for a term of two years with the terms
being staggered. No more than one faculty
member on the list can be a member of any
specific peer review committee. A faculty
member may not stand for post tenure
revue during the term of appointment to
the list.
(3) For the purpose of evaluation for tenure
and/or promotion of members of the ACCFT
bargaining unit, a list of the names of
nine faculty members will be presented
BY THE CRA EXECUTIVE DEAN
to the Provost who will select the
committee or committees. The list will be
selected from the tenured faculty in the
ACCFT bargaining unit by vote of those
faculty. Faculty shall remain on the list
for a term of two years with the terms
being staggered. A faculty member may
not stand for promotion during the term
of appointment to the list. The Provost
will appoint two members from the United
Academics University-wide Promotion/
Tenure Committee to serve on the ACCFT
Promotion/Tenure Committee.
********************
ATTACHMENT 96/7
UAF FACULTY SENATE #96
SEPTEMBER 25, 2000
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS
Curricular Affairs Committee Meeting Report
The Curricular Affairs committee held its first meeting on September 6,
2000 as an audioconference from 1100 to 1205. All but 3 members
were in attendance or on the audioconference.
The committee agreed to the following meeting schedule:
27 September, 2000 1100-1200
11 October, 2000 1100-1200
25 October, 2000 1100-1200
8 November, 2000 1100-1200
22 November, 2000 1100-1200
All meetings will be audioconferenced as well as face to face as several
members of the committee are from outside Fairbanks.
As there were several new members to the committee, introductions
were made and the committee responsibilities were discussed.
The issue listing was presented and discussed and members were asked
to identify other issues which may come to their attention and submit
them for inclusion. Additionally, it was agreed that we would address
the issues of prerequisites in the catalog and of removal of courses from
the catalog as well as frequency of course offering information in the
catalog at our next meeting 27 September, 2000.
Sukumar Bandopadhyay has agreed to chair the Curriculum Review
committee. The chair of this committee must come from Curricular
Affairs.
Wanda Martin from the Advising Center, submitted a Transfer Credit
Equivalency request for the area of Certified Payroll Professional
Examination. This was approved with minor cleanup of language.
The meeting was adjourned.
Issues for Curricular Affairs AY 2000-2001:
Distance Delivery
1) Policy on correspondence courses
2) Policy on seat time (1 cr = 800 min)
3) Course approval policies
Dual Enrollment Policy
Removal of Courses from Catalog
Modification of frequency of offering description in catalog
BAS Amendment
1) What is the BAS committee makeup
Four year schedule to be added to catalog
Policy re GPA determination for courses retaken
Double counting of courses issue
Course Equivalency decision
Flagging/tagging of prerequisites
1) Prerequisite validity
Transfer core acceptance: Associate level
********************
ATTACHMENT 96/8
UAF FACULTY SENATE #96
SEPTEMBER 25, 2000
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS
FACULTY AFFAIRS MEETING REPORT, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 - C.P. McRoy,
Chair
Members Present: C.P. McRoy (chair), M. Davis, B. Mortensen, J. Weins
Visitors: C. Gold
New Business:
1) Sabbatical Leave Policy
Dr. Gold presented an exchange of email with M. Hostina concerning
the interpretation of the sabbatical leave policy with respect to
compensation. Apparently the wording in the CBA is identical to pre-
existing Regents' policy but the interpretation of how a faculty member
is compensated may be different. Faculty Affairs will examine this and
include it as an agenda item (Weins).
2) Research Faculty
A motion concerning the membership of research faculty on the
Faculty Senate was discussed. The motion had a first reading at the
last Senate meeting in spring. The committee discussion raised several
issues with the motion as presented and will study the issue (McRoy). A
related issue concerns the promotion review process for research
faculty.
3) Emeritus Procedure
In response to a request from Provost Reichardt at the last
Administrative Committee meeting, Faculty Affairs will review the policy
of nominations to emeritus status. Present policy requires only that
three faculty members from any unit submit the nomination. Should the
department/college/school be in the nomination queue?
4) Information Resources Regulation
The IR policy is currently in draft form for the Regents next meeting.
R. Gatterdam is the point person for faculty comments. Faculty Affairs
will review policy for possible comment.
Other business:
Faculty Affairs will meet this academic year on the 2nd Thursday of the
month at 1500 hrs in the Runcorn Conference Room of Natural
Sciences. Next meeting 12 October.
********************
ATTACHMENT 96/9
UAF FACULTY SENATE #96
SEPTEMBER 25, 2000
SUBMITTED BY DEVELOPMENTAL STUDIES
Minutes of The Developmental Studies Committee
September 14, 2000, Chancellor's Conference Room
Attending: Barbara Adams, Patty Baldwin, John Bruder, Rich Carr, John
Creed, Marty Getz, Cindy Hardy, Marjie Illingworth, Ron Illingworth,
Wanda Martin, Greg Owens, Jane Weber.
The committee discussed the following items:
Grading Systems for Developmental classes:
We began the year by reviewing those items of concern to the
committee, which have carried over from last year. The first of these
was a continuing discussion of grading systems, particularly the
possibility of implementing an A/B/ No Pass system for Developmental
classes.
The following concerns were raised:
1. How to implement a system of grading that indicates a student needs
further work at that level but that does not affect GPA or financial aid
eligibility?
Suggestions included having a statement in the catalogue listing "B or
better" in the previous level as a prerequisite for the next level; having
admissions print lists of those students in a class who don 't meet this
prerequisite for faculty to have before class starts; and having a report
sent to these students indicating they don't meet the prerequisite.
Marjie agreed to gather further ideas on this by e-mail from committee
members and will bring them to the next meeting.
2. How to ensure accurate placement of students through effective
testing and advising?
Suggestions included establishing more sites for COMPASS and requiring
that students bring their scores the first day of class; developing an "in
house" test in the manner of the Math 107 test; and requesting a block
on admissions for students who try to register without appropriate test
scores or advising.
Cindy agreed to contact the Admissions office to see if they could catch
students needing DEV placement at that level-thus avoiding the need to
put a block in BANNER.
Report from the Accreditation Subcommittee:
The Developmental Studies Accreditation Working Group is a working
group established by the Accreditation Steering Committee and is a
subcommittee of that group. Membership on the committee includes
members of the DEV Studies Committee and the DEV Studies Division.
Ron reported that the committee has been waiting for data from
Institutional Research. The initial data he received appears to be
inaccurate and he is hoping for better data, including some on the
demographics of our students. Initial reports show that the number of
DEV sections has decreased from 48-33 and that we average around
900 students per semester. We offer 33 DEV classes at different
levels: 3 levels in English, 7 in math, and 3 in developmental studies.
The subcommittee will meet to discuss reporting on the following
issues: policies, needs of urban and rural students, placement, ratio of
full time to part time faculty, and coordination between programs.
Math Tutoring Hotline:
Jane reported that the Math Tutoring Hotline is up and running, tutoring
students in DEVM and Math 131 classes. This is funded by a CRA
Distance Delivery grant. We will look at the information at the end of
the semester to determine if more tutors and more times are needed.
The next meeting of the committee will be Thursday, October 26, 1-
2:30 in the Chancellor's Conference Room.
********************
ATTACHMENT 96/10
UAF FACULTY SENATE #96
SEPTEMBER 25, 2000
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY APPEALS & OVERSIGHT
Report of the first meeting of the Faculty Appeals and Oversight -
Godwin Chukwu, Chair
Present: Godwin A. Chukwu, SME; Brian Himelbloom, SFOS/FITC; Ed
Husted, CRA; Kristy Long, CRA/ACE; George Khazanov, CSEM; Joan
Moessner, CLA
Absent: Oscar Kawagley, SOE; Mitch Roth, CSEM; Dennis Schall, SOED;
Rick Steiner, SFOS-MAP
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
The present committee consists of ten (10) positions
representing the units. The following schools/colleges have vacant
positions to be filled:
SOM (2)
SALRM (2)
SME (1)
CLA (1)
Sheri Layral has notified the Deans of these schools/colleges to elect
representatives to fill the positions.
Old Business
The committee re-visited three (3) major items that were referred
from the Faculty Senate.
(a) Appeals policy for academic decisions (attachment).
The committee reviewed the draft policy with minor corrections. (7.2.c)
(b) Guidelines for the Evaluation Process for Administration. The
committee deliberated on this submission and recommends the version
(with minor amendment) attached to the agenda.
(c) UAF Faculty Appointment & Evaluation Policy
Committee recommends putting the unit criteria back into the Blue
Book as is. The committee could not address the concerns of Ron
Illingworth, that ACCFT members do not need unit criteria because they
have wording in their contract because a copy of the contract was not
available to the committee.
NEW BUSINESS
The committee was asked to recommend appeal procedure for
candidates rejected to the graduate program. The committee has
asked Sheri to invite James Gardner, Graduate Academic & Advisory
Committee and Joe Kan, Dean of Graduate School to their October 12,
2000 meeting to share their views on this subject.
Joan Moessner was elected as the Vice-Chair of the Faculty Appeals &
Oversight Committee.
********************
ATTACHMENT 96/11
UAF FACULTY SENATE #96
SEPTEMBER 25, 2000
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY DEVELOPMENT, ASSESSMENT & IMPROVEMENT
Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement Committee Meeting
Report - E. Thomas Robinson, Chair
The Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement committee held
its first meeting on September 14, 2000 as an audio-conference from
2:00 - 2:55 in the Wood Center conference room A. All known
members were accounted for and in attendance unless experiencing a
conflict. Special member and colleague Joy Morrison, Provost Associate
for Faculty Development, also joined us for the first meeting of the
semester.
All meetings will be audio-conference as three members are outside of
Fairbanks (Bethel, Dillingham, and Palmer).
Introductions were made as the meeting was called to order by
convener, E T Robinson. First order of business resulted in E. Tom
Robinson being voted as chair. A meeting time was identified where all
known members could attend, with the next meeting to be held at
11:30 - 12:30, Tuesday, September 26, 2000. The meeting will be held
in the Chancellor's conference room.
Although an agenda was distributed in advance and followed, the main
thrust of the meeting was very up beat as Joy Morrison identified what
has been done and what is planned. Dr. Morrison, whose term runs from
2000 - 2002, will serve on the committee as the representative of the
Office of Faculty Development. As was pointed out and applauded by all
those in attendance, we as faculty and members of the UAF community
thank the powers that be, for once again having such an office and look
forward to interacting with Dr. Morrison. To the Provost, Chancellor,
and all others responsible, the committee thanks you! For the record,
check out the web site and activities:
http://www.uaf.edu/provost/faculty_development/
A number of items will be discussed at the next meeting including, but
not limited to, speakers, instruction assessment surveys, the
department chair's role in reviews, activity reports, forth year reviews,
post-tenure review. It should be noted that the committee welcomes
and invites interested faculty to join the membership. Contact the
governance office (7964) or chair, E T Robinson at 6526 or
ffetr@uaf.edu.
********************
ATTACHMENT 96/12
UAF FACULTY SENATE #96
SEPTEMBER 25, 2000
SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ACADEMIC & ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The newly formed Graduate Academic and Advisory Committee (Jim
Gardner chairman) met for the first time on September 6, 2000.
A general outline of some of the duties of this year's committee were
discussed, as this committee is an amalgamation of the Graduate and
Professional Curricular Affairs Committee and Graduate School Advisory
Committee. The main order of business was the reintroduction of the
proposal to create the M.A. in Cross-Cultural Studies. Joe Kan discussed
the approval of the proposal by the Graduate School. After all
committee members have had a chance to fully review the proposal,
they will meet again to discuss the merits of the proposal. Final
decision is expected in early October.
The issue of redefining the definition of graduate correspondence versus
distance delivery courses was raised as an important issue that the
committee needs to address in order to clarify the UAF catalog, and will
be an agenda item for a future meeting of the committee.
No other items were on the agenda, and so the committee adjourned, to
much rejoicing.
********************
ATTACHMENT 96/13
UAF FACULTY SENATE #96
SEPTEMBER 25, 2000
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY APPEALS & OVERSIGHT
GUIDELINES FOR THE EVALUATION PROCESS FOR ADMINISTRATORS
1. The administrator's supervisor appoints an ad hoc evaluation
committee consisting of five members drawn from both the faculty and
staff pools. At least one committee member will be appointed from
within the administrator's constituency.
The committee will secure input from all relevant constituencies
on-and-off campus, faculty, staff and students.
2. The administrators to be evaluated prepare self evaluation of
activities since the last evaluation or hire date.
The administrators should reflect on their perceived role as
leaders of their unit/constituency, and comment on how they see
themselves as having fulfilled that role.
This reflective summary should indicate where they believe the
unit/constituency should be going over the next three years and some
specific steps they see themselves taking to lead their
unit/constituency to this goal.
3. The committee chair solicits comments relative to the
administrator's performance from the faculty and staff, using a standard
questionnaire which will be anonymously returned to the chair of the
evaluation committee. The chair compiles and analyzes the results with
the committee members.
4. A select sample of faculty, staff, students and other relative
people will be interviewed by the committee regarding their opinions
about the administrator's performance.
5. The administrator being reviewed will be interviewed by the
committee and appropriate feedback will be provided to him/her relative
to the information the committee may already have received.
6. The committee reviews all materials, prepares a summary of their
findings, and submits findings to the Provost (in the case of Deans and
Directors), or to the Chancellor (in the case of the Provost).
7. A. FOR DEANS AND DIRECTORS:
1) The committee will meet with the Provost and deliver their
report as well as discuss their findings during the review process.
2) A copy of the committee findings will be made available to
the faculty and staff in the units reviewed and others as requested from
the Provost's Office.
B. FOR THE PROVOST:
1) The Provost and the Chancellor meet to discuss evaluation
and performance priorities for the next review period.
(2) A summary that can be made public is prepared by the
Chancellor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EVALUATION PROCESS FOR ADMINISTRATORS
1. WITHIN THE FIRST THREE WEEKS OF THE FALL SEMESTER THE
SUPERVISOR OF THE ADMINISTRATOR TO BE REVIEWED WILL appoint an
AD HOC ADMINISTRATOR REVIEW COMMITTEE consisting of THREE
faculty and TWO staff members FROM THE ADMINISTRATORšS UNIT.
ADDITIONALLY, TWO MEMBERS OF THE UAF FACULTY APPEALS AND
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE SHALL SERVE IN AN EX OFFICIO CAPACITY AS
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FACULTY SENATE. The AD HOC Committee
will SOLICIT input from all relevant constituencies on- and off-campus,
INCLUDING faculty, staff, and students. THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED
THROUGH VARIOUS INSTRUMENTS, E.G., A STANDARD QUESTIONNAIRE
COMPLETED ANONYMOUSLY AND RETURNED TO THE COMMITTEE CHAIR.
2. The Administrator to be evaluated WILL prepare A NARRATIVE self-
evaluation of activities PERFORMED DURING the three year PERIOD
(ACADEMIC YEARS) PRIOR TO THE YEAR OF EVALUATION or since the
last evaluation. THIS NARRATIVE SHOULD INCLUDE REFLECTIONS ABOUT
HOW ADEQUATELY S/HE HAS FULFILLED RESPONSIBILITIES OF
LEADERSHIP CONSISTENT WITH HIS/HER OWN PERFORMANCE
EXPECTATIONS AND THOSE OF FACULTY, STAFF, AND STUDENTS IN THE
UNIT. MAJOR OR OTHERWISE SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS SHOULD
BE HIGHLIGHTED. ANY ISSUES RAISED IN THE LAST EVALUATION
SHOULD BE REFERENCED WITH A VIEW TO WHAT PROGRESS HAS BEEN
MADE ON THOSE ITEMS. FINALLY, THE SELF-EVALUATION SHOULD
IDENTIFY A LIMITED SET OF REASONABLE GOALS FOR THE UNIT OVER
THE NEXT THREE YEARS, WITH SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT SPECIFIC
STRATEGIES THAT MAY BE UNDERTAKEN THROUGH HIS/HER
ADMINISTRATIVE LEADERSHIP.
3. THE AD HOC COMMITTEE WILL INTERVIEW A select sample of faculty,
staff, students and otherS AS RELEVANT FOR FURTHER EVALUATIVE
COMMENTS about the Administrator's performance.
4. The AD HOC COMMITTEE WILL INTERVIEW THE Administrator EITHER
IN PERSON OR BY CONFERENCE CALL. THE INTERVIEW SHALL PROCEED
ON THE BASIS OF A SELECTED SET OF QUESTIONS WHICH REFERENCE
THE ADMINISTRATORšS SELF-EVALUATION, THE RESULTS OF RETURNED
QUESTIONNAIRES, AND THE INTERVIEWS OF FACULTY, STAFF, AND
STUDENTS.
5. THE AD HOC Committee WILL prepare a summary of ITS findings,
and submit ITS REPORT to the Provost (in THE case of EVALUATION OF
Deans and Directors) or to the Chancellor (in THE case of EVALUATION
OF the Provost). THE AD HOC COMMITTEE SHALL WORK AS
EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE IN COMPLETING ITS REPORT AND SUBMIT IT
TO THE PROVOST OR CHANCELLOR BY MARCH 15 OF THE SPRING
SEMESTER. THE REPORT SHALL BE SUBMITTED ALSO TO THE UAF
FACULTY SENATEšS FACULTY APPEALS & OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE FOR
REVIEW.
(A) AT A DATE TO BE SET BY THE PROVOST, THE PROVOST SHALL
MEET IN JOINT CONFERENCE WITH THE AD HOC COMMITTEE AND THE
FACULTY APPEALS & OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE FOR FINAL REVIEW,
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISPOSITION OF THE ADMINISTRATORšS
EVALUATION. A COPY OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEEšS REPORT WILL BE
MADE AVAILABLE TO THE FACULTY AND STAFF OF THE
ADMINISTRATORšS UNIT UPON WRITTEN REQUEST TO THE PROVOST,
WHO WILL, HOWEVER, HAVE DISCRETION TO WITHHOLD ELEMENTS OF
THE REPORT, CONSISTENT WITH UNIVERSITY PERSONNEL POLICY
GOVERNING CONFIDENTIALITY.
(B) AT A DATE TO BE SET BY THE CHANCELLOR, THE PROVOST
AND THE CHANCELLOR SHALL MEET TO DISCUSS THE AD HOC
COMMITTEEšS EVALUATION OF THE PROVOST. DURING THIS MEETING
THE CHANCELLOR AND PROVOST SHALL IDENTIFY PERFORMANCE
PRIORITIES FOR THE NEXT REVIEW PERIOD. THE CHANCELLOR SHALL
MEET WITH IN JOINT CONFERENCE WITH THE AD HOC COMMITTEE AND
THE UAF FACULTY SENATEšS FACULTY APPEALS & OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE TO SUMMARIZE HIS FINDINGS. THE CHANCELLOR SHALL
PREPARE AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE PROVOSTš EVALUATION TO
BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY UPON WRITTEN
REQUEST TO THE OFFICE OF THE CHANCELLOR.
Revisions as suggested by Norm Swazo
21 April 2000